How many of u use a UV filter?

koala yummies wrote in post #14662260
This topic is like a zombie, it's so freaking dead, but still alive

lol

Milutiche wrote in post #14663439
I never us UV filters, most of the time I use a hood

I have the Canon 16 -35mm f2.8 lens and because of the field of view it produces, the hood size offers minimal protection compared to other lenses. I'm always really scared and ultra cautious about using it without a UV filter.

koala yummies wrote in post #14662260
This topic is like a zombie, it's so freaking dead, but still alive....

TOTALLY

Absolutely you should use them -- I'll help you out by selling you the ones I have sitting around....unused.

Hogloff wrote in post #14663474
And I bet you don't even take any freezing for dental work. Just bite on the old bullet right.

I wonder how all those lenses get fine scratches on them that get sold quite often for 1/2 of what they would fetch without that fine scratch.

I have no scratches on the glass of any of my lenses, never have. And anyone who sells a lens for half price because of "fine scratches" is a flip'n idiot. Anyone who thinks fine scratches on the front element will show up in a photo, in any way whatsoever - is also an idiot.

The lens that I spit the water onto, the one with all the mud, that was a Canon 75-300 4-5.6 USM that I bought in either '98 or '99 for $125 new from B&H. I sold it 6 years ago when I switched to Nikon and it ended up getting bid up to over $130, looked in near perfect condition, and was 100% mechanically. Buyer was happy with it according to my follow-up with him (as I do for all auctions).

And what's with your analogies? Why can't you come up with one that actually makes any sense and, in any way at all, pertains to the situation at hand? I mean, you could have come up with any number of analogies talking about car/home/life insurance, or extended warranties ... those would make sense being that a UV filter is used as a form of insurance for your lens, but dental work --- really?

Bill Ng wrote in post #14664861
I have no scratches on the glass of any of my lenses, never have. And anyone who sells a lens for half price because of "fine scratches" is a flip'n idiot. Anyone who thinks fine scratches on the front element will show up in a photo, in any way whatsoever - is also an idiot.

The lens that I spit the water onto, the one with all the mud, that was a Canon 75-300 4-5.6 USM that I bought in either '98 or '99 for $125 new from B&H. I sold it 6 years ago when I switched to Nikon and it ended up getting bid up to over $130, looked in near perfect condition, and was 100% mechanically. Buyer was happy with it according to my follow-up with him (as I do for all auctions).

And what's with your analogies? Why can't you come up with one that actually makes any sense and, in any way at all, pertains to the situation at hand? I mean, you could have come up with any number of analogies talking about car/home/life insurance, or extended warranties ... those would make sense being that a UV filter is used as a form of insurance for your lens, but dental work --- really?

But...how did those fine scratches get onto the lenses if the glass is so tough? And you would pay full value for a scratched lens over a prestine one? If so, I think I have some land you might be interested in

Now I understand you don't use filters for protection...that is fine. I do when put into a certain environment. I can tell you this much, my glass is clean, I don't spend time in the field carefully cleaning my glass ( just change filter ) and my customers love my images. They work for me. If what you do works for you, great, but please stop spreading the BS that protection filters don't protect the glass. THEY DO. Otherwise we would never see any scratches on the glass, right?

Hogloff wrote in post #14664947
But...how did those fine scratches get onto the lenses if the glass is so tough? And you would pay full value for a scratched lens over a prestine one? If so, I think I have some land you might be interested in

Now I understand you don't use filters for protection...that is fine. I do when put into a certain environment. I can tell you this much, my glass is clean, I don't spend time in the field carefully cleaning my glass ( just change filter ) and my customers love my images. They work for me. If what you do works for you, great, but please stop spreading the BS that protection filters don't protect the glass. THEY DO. Otherwise we would never see any scratches on the glass, right?

What are you talking about? What fine scratches? The ones you keep talking about that have never shown up on any lens I've ever owned or any one that I've ever seen?

And you please stop spreading the BS that UV filters protect glass. They don't.

Hogloff wrote in post #14663474
I wonder how all those lenses get fine scratches on them that get sold quite often for 1/2 of what they would fetch without that fine scratch.

where is this magical land that morons are selling lenses for half their value? even a broken non working lens goes for half the value...do scratches drop the value of a lens...yes...but maybe like 10% less than normal...

Hogloff wrote in post #14664947
please stop spreading the BS that protection filters don't protect the glass. THEY DO. Otherwise we would never see any scratches on the glass, right?

i've seen more scratched front elements from when the cheap filter shatters, and the glass gets in there than scratched elements that didn't have a filter at all....

30 + years old hood only
As you can see buy the camera and the lens barrel was not handled with kid gloves.

I use UV filter for all my lens. just in case if I ding it, and I will not regret it.

Seems to be half full/half empty

scman wrote in post #14665887
Seems to be half full/half empty

No, just too large/small

Snydremark wrote in post #14665978
No, just too large/small

That's what...nevermind.

I just got a Hoya EVO protector (totally clear) "filter" as part of the order for my 70-300L, mostly because the dust/weather sealing is incomplete without a filter on it. I figure I am paying that kind of money for a lens with sealing it might as well be sealed, and I have kids who like to spit and reach and do other silly things and I know that personally I'll feel more comfortable cleaning the filter than the front element. All it takes is one speck of sand on your cloth/lens pen to really ruin your day.

I use a hood and UV filter. The UV filter mostly for protection so that nothing scratches my front element. The hood is always on so if I drop the lens... it may be okay, and for reducing flare.

Once upon a time in the land of caononia, an evil wizard started a rumor that the delicate eye of the eoslensaca had to be protected from the harsh outside world and it's many perils. He devised a system where the crisp seeing eye of this creature was going to be covered with a glass like substance of dubious quality and unknown origin.The eoslensaca, being a intelligent animal, was never seen without their magical hoods of solar protection and were confused by this intrusion into their gloriously clear world. Some unfortunatley were scared into thinking that this flimsy covering was going to protect them from harm and gladly covered their eyes. Other's were wary of this and vowed never to cover their eyes and allow the gods of insurance care for them if tragedy ever befell them.
So the great debate started never to be finished in our time or our offspings time.